Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Thomas Hendry, a waiter in a hotel in Stirling, was brought before the Police Court of that burgh on a complaint by Thomas Ferguson, Procurator—Fiscal for the burgh, charging him with breach of the peace, “In so far as between the hours of

Page: 660↓

eleven and twelve of the clock, on the forenoon of Sunday the 1st day of April 1883 years, or about that time, the said Thomas Hendry did, within or near the Union Hall, situated in or near Thistle Street of Stirling, occupied or possessed by William Booth, General of the Salvation Army, and now or lately residing in or near Queen Victoria Street, in the city of London, during a meeting of the Stirling branch of the Salvation Army aforesaid then being held in said hall, conduct himself in a riotous, outrageous, and disorderly manner, by then and there shouting and screaming at the top of his voice, or otherwise creating a noise and disturbance, whereby said meeting was interrupted and disturbed, and a breach of the peace committed.”

On the 9th of April Hendry compeared before the Magistrate, and his agent took exception to the relevancy of the indictment, “in respect that it contained no allegation either statutory or at common law against the said Thomas Hendry on which a conviction can follow.” The objection was repelled. Evidence was thereafter led, and it was proved to the satisfaction of the Magistrate that on the occasion libelled the Salvation Army were holding a religious service chiefly conducted by a Miss Roberts, a captain in the Army. The service consisted of the singing of hymns, prayer, reading of the Bible, and an address. The accused was present from the beginning of the meeting, and during the singing of a hymn he sang at the close of each verse a mocking refrain so loudly as to be heard throughout the hall in which the meeting was held. During other parts of the service he created a disturbance by making a noise with his feet and by loudly imitating the crying of a cat. He also shouted abusive epithets to two of the speakers, and the result of his conduct, which he persisted in notwithstanding remonstrance, was at times to bring the meeting to a stop. He refused either to be quiet or leave, and a policeman was sent for. He left while the messenger was absent. The disturbance caused by him lasted nearly an hour, and the Magistrate found that it “had the effect of disturbing, interrupting the meeting, and molesting the persons engaged in it.”

The Magistrate convicted the accused of the offence libelled, and fined him £3. He paid the fine, and took a Case for appeal. The questions of law were (1) Whether the complaint sets forth a relevant charge of breach of the peace? (2) Whether the facts proved warrant the conviction?

Argued for the appellant—There was no relevant or sufficiently specific charge. It contained an alternative, “or otherwise creating a noise and disturbance,” without any specification of what was done— Buiat v. Linton, 20th November 1865, 5 Irv. 210; Ritchie v. M'Phee, 25th October 1882, 20 Scot. Law Rep. 26. (2) There was no offence here either statutory or at common law. This was a public meeting to which all were invited, and the complainer here had done nothing but what was within his right, viz., expressed his dissent with the views which were being advocated at the meeting.

Argued for the respondent—The appellant here went to a religious meeting and disturbed it in the manner proved before the Magistrate. There was quite enough set forth in the libel to make it relevant. The words “or otherwise” did not really present an alternative conclusion; they were only inserted to allow sufficient evidence of all the different acts of annoyance the appellant had been guilty of to be produced. This was also an offence at common law. No person was entitled to make a disturbance in a public meeting, and this was a religious meeting as well— Sleigh & Russell v. Moxey, 12th June 1850, Sh. 369; M'Dougal v. Dykes, 18th Nov. 1861, 4 Irv. 101, and 34 S. J. 26.

At advising—